LISNews: - Comments for "New OverDrive DRM terms: &quot;This message will self-destruct&quot; "http://lisnews.org/new_overdrive_drm_terms_quotthis_message_will_selfdestructquot
Comments for "New OverDrive DRM terms: "This message will self-destruct" "enwell, now that we know the rules, we can play by them..http://lisnews.org/comment/45813#comment-45813
<a id="comment-45813"></a>
<p><em>In reply to <a href="http://lisnews.org/comment/45808#comment-45808">Because they&#039;re trying to remove existing affordances</a></em></p>
<div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>so the rule is that a library can circulate an ebook 26 times before the electrons spin out of control to create a Tek War novel.</p>
<p>so what we should do is provide our own data that says that libraries circulate a normal hardcover book over 100 times before we consider replacing it with a new copy. </p>
<p>with that data, we now have a reason to digitize and distribute our own ebooks from our print copies to make up the 74+ user difference. all within the scope of fair use, since we are only making a back up copy for when the publisher force-retires the ecopy.</p>
<p>the argument is that the publisher is trying to establish a form of planned obsolescence for ebooks which is not supported by the print format. unless they're also trying to add in planned theft, as if they say that they would like to steal back our books that we buy... which is kind of insane and probably wouldn't stand up in court (IANAL, but I can show you where the law books are).</p>
</div></div></div><ul class="links inline"><li class="comment-reply first last"><a href="/comment/reply/38696/45813">reply</a></li>
</ul>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:56:04 +0000effinglibrariancomment 45813 at http://lisnews.orgDoes the PLR suck?http://lisnews.org/comment/45809#comment-45809
<a id="comment-45809"></a>
<p><em>In reply to <a href="http://lisnews.org/comment/45808#comment-45808">Because they&#039;re trying to remove existing affordances</a></em></p>
<div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>In other countries they have a Public Lending Right where authors are compensated for every time a book is lent. See: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Lending_Right">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Lending_Right</a></p>
<p>I assume you disagree with this also Walt.</p>
</div></div></div><ul class="links inline"><li class="comment-reply first last"><a href="/comment/reply/38696/45809">reply</a></li>
</ul>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:07:47 +0000Anonymouscomment 45809 at http://lisnews.orgBecause they're trying to remove existing affordanceshttp://lisnews.org/comment/45808#comment-45808
<a id="comment-45808"></a>
<p><em>In reply to <a href="http://lisnews.org/comment/45800#comment-45800">Why</a></em></p>
<div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Yes, publishers sell print books. And as soon as they sell them, First Sale Rights come into play, which is why libraries can lend them, people can sell used books, you can give them to other people...</p>
<p>Publishers don't sell ebooks: they license them. And now they're making it clear that they want libraries to pay for each and every circulation--which is removing an affordance that helped make public libraries workable in the U.S.</p>
<p>And yes, that sucks.</p>
</div></div></div><ul class="links inline"><li class="comment-reply first last"><a href="/comment/reply/38696/45808">reply</a></li>
</ul>Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:07:34 +0000Waltcomment 45808 at http://lisnews.orgNYThttp://lisnews.org/comment/45805#comment-45805
<a id="comment-45805"></a>
<p><em>In reply to <a href="http://lisnews.org/new_overdrive_drm_terms_quotthis_message_will_selfdestructquot">New OverDrive DRM terms: &quot;This message will self-destruct&quot; </a></em></p>
<div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Story at NYT ReadWriteWeb about this.</p>
<p>This Library E-Book Will Self-Destruct After 26 Check Outs<br /><a href="http://nyti.ms/hO7kZS">http://nyti.ms/hO7kZS</a></p>
</div></div></div><ul class="links inline"><li class="comment-reply first last"><a href="/comment/reply/38696/45805">reply</a></li>
</ul>Sat, 26 Feb 2011 06:32:04 +0000Bibliofuturecomment 45805 at http://lisnews.orgWhyhttp://lisnews.org/comment/45800#comment-45800
<a id="comment-45800"></a>
<p><em>In reply to <a href="http://lisnews.org/comment/45799#comment-45799">Publishing&#039;s next gambit</a></em></p>
<div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Why do they suck? Because they are trying to make money? Publishers are not a charity. They sell books.</p>
</div></div></div><ul class="links inline"><li class="comment-reply first last"><a href="/comment/reply/38696/45800">reply</a></li>
</ul>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:40:03 +0000Anonymouscomment 45800 at http://lisnews.orgPublishing's next gambithttp://lisnews.org/comment/45799#comment-45799
<a id="comment-45799"></a>
<p><em>In reply to <a href="http://lisnews.org/new_overdrive_drm_terms_quotthis_message_will_selfdestructquot">New OverDrive DRM terms: &quot;This message will self-destruct&quot; </a></em></p>
<div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Okay...libraries have pointed out how previously enforced/contemplated restrictions on e-book lending hurts our patrons (especially those who couldn't otherwise afford to obtain e-book content) and undermines our fundamental mission. Now the latest salvo from a publisher in what's becoming a slow-drip, retrograde negotiation between libraries and publishers over how e-book sales will be handled in the library market. Now they want to restrict how LONG a library can KEEP a title in its collection before it goes *poof*. They'll no longer sell to us...they'll only RENT to us.</p>
<p>I guess the ultimate test of this latest brilliant idea is how much sales Harper Collins is willing to lose in the library market and whether or not that translates into more direct sales to individual readers. Shame on you, Harper-Collins. As a public library director I'll be paying much closer attention to who publishes a given title and, believe me, that factor will influence which e-books (and hard copies) I'll spend money on. </p>
<p>I can't think of any other way to put this: You guys suck.</p>
</div></div></div><ul class="links inline"><li class="comment-reply first last"><a href="/comment/reply/38696/45799">reply</a></li>
</ul>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:29:30 +0000Anonymouscomment 45799 at http://lisnews.org